More tid-bits for your right-wing brother-in-law

This is another example of Romney feeling the urgent need to reach extremes in order to appease the far-right contingent of the GOP base, in this case the neocon segment. By continually courting the fringe at this point in the campaign is a prolonged act of desperation, one that is soaked with flop-sweat. He should already have the base locked-up and put to bed, more than confident in their intent to vote for him. However, his actions continue to hint otherwise and make one seriously question whether internal polling is flashing panic signals. I mean what he's doing and continues to do, pandering to the kooks, is party primary stuff. By now Romney should be looking to tack to the middle, given the general electorate is much more moderate than the core of the GOP. Needless to say, the longer his campaign remains in this base-seeking mode, the better it is for Obama.

"A survey of forty economists from across the ideological and partisan spectrum has concluded that on some of its most cherished issues, the Republican Party has simply taken leave of economic reality. For instance, economists Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers noted that one of the results from the survey — run by the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business, which is hardly known for a left-wing slant — is an overwhelming agreement that the 2009 Recovery Act (i.e. the stimulus) brought down unemployment. But GOP leaders have spent years roundly denouncing the stimulus as a failure."

Rasmussen polls can't be trusted: "After the 2010 elections, the New York Times statistics wizard, Nate Silver, analyzed the polls produced by various polling organizations, including Rasmussen Reports, which is the house pollster for Fox News. Silver's analysis covered only polls taken during the final three weeks of the campaign and compared them to the actual election results....Silver analyzed 105 polls released by Rasmussen Reports and its subsidiary, Pulse Opinion Research, for Senate and gubernatorial races in numerous states across the country. The bottom line is that on average, Rasmussen's polls were off by 5.8% with a bias of 3.9% in favor of the Republican candidates."

"During the 1950s and ’60s, financial institutions were tightly regulated. Bankers did not make money by trading for their own account but instead earned fees for providing advice to their customers and serving as a go-between for companies raising capital. Their goal was to get to know their clients well, understand their problems, and act in their best interests—somewhat like family doctors. They were not compensated absurd amounts. Wall Street was viewed as a place not for high flyers but for sober, cautious people who were perhaps a little boring. Meanwhile, the economy boomed and we had very few financial crises."

Financial Scandal Scorecard.

Who's being duped?

National Review's Rich Lowry recently wrote that young Americans were being "duped" by Obama. What Lowry apparently doesn't understand is these "youthful idealists" of which he labels "saps, patsies and suckers" are actually anything but naive idiots. Quite the contrary.

The fact is most young folks today are smart enough to realize that Obama inherited a cluster-f*cked economy, namely the worst downturn since the Great Depression. Given the extent to which the situation was grave, with economic activity lacking a pulse, most intelligent voters appreciated that to fully recover from this mess in a mere three years was highly unlikely. After all, it took the New Deal and arguably WWII to successfully get the nation back on course over fifty years ago, and we have yet to see anything close to that degree of stimulus in relative terms. As it is, even after three bouts of quantitative easing (QE), you can still hear Bernanke strongly infer in his most recent comments that he and the Fed cannot do it alone, that help is needed in the form of additional fiscal stimulus. Yet such pleas for assistance are of course in vain.

To state that Obama is fully to blame for this continued economic malaise is simply disingenuous and frankly makes Lowry appear to be willfully duped by Republicans. Let's first remind him that this economy was inherited, with GW/Cheney overseeing eight years of reckless spending to the tune of about $2 trillion in unfunded wars and tax breaks for the top 1%. And it wasn't Obama who sat in the White House for years while the financial and housing sectors ballooned and popped, in large part due to inadequate regulation and oversight. But never mind all of that, past history, right? (Yet imagine what Lowry et al would say if things were reversed, if it was a Democrat as president during those eight years and a Republican running things since 2009 -- to this day, it would be 24/7 blame for the 2001-2008 years, make no mistake).

Then when Obama finally enters the scene in early 2009, eventually offering more than few proposals and solutions to help reverse our down-slide, who is there every time to obstruct and insure the economy remains woefully moribund? Yes, the Republicans, who are suddenly obsessed with the deficit and spending cuts. This is the party claiming to be about "Country First" and yet really is all about making sure a supposed Kenyan imposter is booted out of office after one term. When Reagan looked to address his recession, the Democrats at that time most often worked with him to get things done for the betterment of the country. We see nothing of the sort today from these Republicans, choosing instead to be craven, partisan hacks for their corporate and wealthy masters.

So again, these "young dupes" as Lowry calls them are well-aware of the reality of what has occurred -- or better yet, what hasn't occurred. Fortunately, most of them don't watch Fox News, with that channel possessing one of the most elderly audiences on TV (average viewer age is 65 years old), meaning young Americans are likely more fact-based and fabrication-free.

But while Lowry's on the subject of being duped, maybe he can comment on the long-standing puzzle regarding red-state voters and Republicans. You talk about individuals getting duped! It's a fact many if not most red states receive more money from the big-bad federal government than they contribute in tax dollars, i.e. they're "welfare queens" dependent on the federal government for needed funds. And yet voters in these states regularly vote for the political party that rails against federal assistance and welfare programs. Call it denial, call it ignorance (likely a mix of both), the odd truth remains that voters in red states too often side with representatives who are against those things that most benefit people in those states. It's flimflam at its best, using propaganda, lies and fear-mongering to convince people to vote against their own interests -- something I believe is best described as dupery.

But I'm sure Mr. Lowry would disagree. Only Obama possesses the skill and power to hypnotize an entire generation, fooling them into supporting him one more time. This kind of mass deception and manipulation has never and would never occur on the other side, it would be unheard of and frankly impossible to do.

Gads.

Some interesting tid-bits

Republicans still complain about tax rates being too high -- despite the fact the top tax rate has not been this low since the 1920s. In fact, in 2009, Americans on average paid the lowest tax rate in 30 years due "in part because of tax cuts President Obama sought to combat the Great Recession....The average tax rate paid by all households fell to 17.4 percent, down from 19.9 percent in 2007, according to the CBO. The 2009 rate was significantly lower than the previous low of 19.4 percent in 2003 and well below the 30-year average of 21 percent."

Still think the climate isn't changing, or it's cyclical, or it's just Mother Nature (whatever that means)? "[L]ook at the ratio of record high and low temperatures in the U.S. over the last 50 years. In the 1950s, we had about the same number of record high temperatures as record lows. That is, the probability of an extraordinarily cold January day was about as likely as an excessively hot July day. By the 2000s, however, we were twice as likely to see a record high in our weather reports as we were a record low. So far in 2012, that ratio is about 10 to one." How can this be a surprise when the fact remains we now have 35% more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere than a century ago?? The first six-months of this year were the hottest ever recorded, by a huge margin. Heck, it was so hot recently that the tarmac at Reagan National Airport in Washington, DC actually melted, trapping a plane.

And not that I endorse it, but the next time you hear a Republican say Obama is stifling oil production and drilling in this country, give them the following facts. U.S. oil production has increased from 5 million barrels per day in 2008 to 6.3 million barrels per day in 2012. Also, the number of oil rigs has more than quadrupled since 2009.

The Head Stooge

About the SCOTUS ACA ruling, I recently wrote:

The SCOTUS dissent wanted to strike down the entire ACA law, a very radical decision in light of past precedent. As it is three prominent legal conservatives (Silberman, Sutton and Fried) found nothing unconstitutional about the ACA. Going further, striking down the entire ACA law would've resulted in chaos in this country as many elements and components of the law are already fully functioning within our current health care system.

Roberts knew all of this and along with his concern for how the Court would appear on the heels of GW vs. Gore and Citizens United, I believe he stepped in and uncharacteristically became a liberal, countering the dissent.
<..>
[I]t was encouraging to learn that Roberts will only go so far with the other right-wing Justices when it comes to radical rulings.

I was glad to read that Linda Greenhouse agreed:

I doubt there was a single reason for the chief justice’s evolution (I know, conservatives hate that word in the context of Supreme Court justices’ ideological trajectories), but let me suggest one: the breathtaking radicalism of the other four conservative justices. The opinion pointedly signed individually by Justices Kennedy, Thomas, Antonin Scalia and Samuel A. Alito Jr. would have invalidated the entire Affordable Care Act, finding no one part of it severable from the rest. This astonishing act of judicial activism has received insufficient attention, because it ultimately didn’t happen, but it surely got the chief justice’s attention as a warning that his ostensible allies were about to drive the Supreme Court over the cliff and into the abyss.

It's heartening to know that when push comes to shove, even right-winger Chief Justice Roberts will stop the madness, clunking the heads of the other four stooges and ultimately rule in favor of judicial sanity as opposed to ideological purity.

Deceptive Health Care Polls

We often hear it cited that polls show most Americans are against the health care reform bill (ACA). Rarely if ever do I see a poll actually showing this majority against, however I have seen polls (like the one below, click to enlarge) where the verdict is very tight.

Source: PollingReport.com

But take a closer look and you'll notice a bit of chicanery occurring with these polls. It's first asked whether one favors or opposes the ACA. In this case, as often is the case, it's a very close call, with 45% favoring and 44% opposing.

But the poll then specifies of those opposing, what percent feel the bill doesn't go far enough in reforming health care and what percent believe the bill goes too far. In this case, of those who answered the first part of this question with an "oppose" reply, 22% opposed the bill because it didn't go far enough, with 68% believing it goes too far.

In no way can people making up this 22% be included with those who oppose the bill overall because they feel it goes too far, and yet that's what repeatedly occurs with these types of polls. In effect, the more adamant and upset liberal individuals are included with the more conservative, right-wing respondents to comprise the overall "44% oppose" category.  And yet, as I just stated, these liberals are not at all in opposition of the bill for the same reason the right-wingers oppose it.

So let's do a little correcting to clear the air. If 22% of the 44% who oppose the bill actually believe it doesn't go far enough, then in reality those individuals are actually very much for health care reform in general. 22% of 44% = about 10%. If we add this 10% to the 45% who favor the health care reform bill, the poll would then look like the following:

                      55% FAVOR health care reform in general
                      34% OPPOSE health care reform in general

Wow, a whopping 21% gap, quite a difference.

Clearly most Americans either favor the ACA or wish that even more health care reforms were present in the bill -- a far cry from what the poll would have one believe at first glance.

More trickle-down nonsense

With regards to Romney's offshore tax shelter accounts, or for that matter offshore tax shelters for all wealthy individuals, how does "trickle down" economics then work? How can the benefits that are supposed to trickle down to the 99% be expected to occur if the capital is tied up in offshore accounts? How does all of this money sitting offshore, escaping taxation, stimulate economic growth in the U.S.?

It should be asked of Romney to explain how the wealthy create jobs via trickle down economics when trillions of dollars are tucked away offshore. Would love to hear his stammering, nonsensical dodge on this topic. Oh, and I'd remind him the tax rate on the top income bracket is at historic lows.

Source: BusinessInsider.com

Thoughts on the SCOTUS ACA ruling

Before it became too late to do so, I wanted to post some brief comments about the SCOTUS decision on the ACA. I wrote much of this down the day of the ruling, but realize by now many of these thoughts have been conveyed on other blogs. Oh well, so be it.

You knew Roberts' "penalty = tax" semantics would be a gift to the right-wingers, and it didn't take long for them to respond in kind.

However, it should be very easy for the Dems to knock down this attack (but then again, nothing ever seems easy for the Dems!). For one, they can turn around and say that if Obamacare increases taxes, then Romneycare did the same in MA. Secondly, when The Heritage Foundation and Republicans designed and supported this same health-care mandate from 1993 to 2009, they actually designed and supported a tax increase. Those two points alone are enough to completely negate this word-play issue.

But ThinkProgress also reminds that whereas the ACA penalty/tax amounts to near $700 per affected household, the payroll tax extension Republicans were against late last year would've amounted to a cost of $1500 on average, or more than twice the ACA penalty figure. As per usual, Republicans are hypocritical and inconsistent, in this case arguing against a tax that costs half as much as the tax increase they were for late last year. And mind you, the payroll tax affects many more people than the ACA penalty.

The SCOTUS dissent wanted to strike down the entire ACA law, a very radical decision in light of past precedent. As it is three prominent legal conservatives (Silberman, Sutton and Fried) found nothing unconstitutional about the ACA. Going further, striking down the entire ACA law would've resulted in chaos in this country as many elements and components of the law are already fully functioning within our current health care system.

Roberts knew all of this and along with his concern for how the Court would appear on the heels of GW vs. Gore and Citizens United, I believe he stepped in and uncharacteristically became a liberal, countering the dissent.

But more so, when reading the dissent, it does make clear just how radical and extreme the right-wing contingent of the Court is and can be. They have no problem with handing down rulings sans of any past precedent -- in so doing, behaving in the activist manner that conservatives have repeatedly accused of liberal Justices. In effect, the Scalia wing offer up opinions about how they wish for the country to go, as opposed to what the Constitution would dictate.

Get ready, for despite this save by Roberts, over the next 10+ years this Court is likely to reshape the country much more so than the gridlocked executive and legislative branches.

It may be true that Roberts purposefully threw the right-wing a bone by redefining the penalty as a tax, but the fact is by him doing so actually saved the ACA. Calling it a tax allowed for it to be constitutional as per the Court and thus upheld. In the end, Roberts' semantics saved the ACA from being struck down by Scalia et al. Also, it was encouraging to learn that Roberts will only go so far with the other right-wing Justices when it comes to radical rulings. A small victory, one not likely to be repeated anytime soon, but you take what you can get from this crew.

Regarding messaging, when polled, the ACA tends to lose because the GOP is very effective at demonizing words and phrases -- in this case, turning "Obamacare" into something perceived to be very bad. However, when individuals are polled on the actual details and policy of the ACA, people generally tend to love what they hear. The real message? Democrats are nowhere near as good as Republicans when it comes to conveying concise, effective word associations. For "Obamacare" to become more popular, this sad fact needs to change.

Three Items

Corporate profits are at an all-time high, wages are at an all-time low and employment continues to be less than stellar.

I say the problem is too much regulation and high taxes are adversely affecting confidence! (gads)

Chris Hayes' weekend gig is a revelation, coming out of nowhere to be the best political show on TV. It's not the usual back & forth prattle to fill up time between commercials, rather Hayes makes sure to keep the discourse elevated and interesting. Highly recommended.

Regarding Europe, billionaire hedge fund manager Ray Dalio recently wrote, "[T]alk of a fiscal union to resolve these problems has to be looked at in light of the question of whether it is in the interest of fiscally strong contributors to have a fiscal union with fiscally weak recipients in which the majority rules how the money is divided."

One can argue whether or not it's in the interest of the "fiscally strong contributors," but then one would also need to argue whether or not the system we have in place here in the U.S. is in the interest of those states that are fiscally stronger than weaker states.

The fact remains the monetary system in Europe has been deeply flawed since its inception. Sovereign states or nations all using a common currency and yet lacking a central body of authority just doesn't work. Over time, some countries will inevitably fare better than others and since the lagging countries no longer have their own currencies to devalue, boosting their competitive advantage, they suffer with no recourse. If a central body existed with adequate power and jurisdiction, it could step in and help those countries by shifting aid from the strong to the weak.

It's what we do in the U.S. We are a fiscal union sharing a common currency and yet we're comprised of 50 states. For every $1 in taxes California sends to Washington, it gets back just $0.78, meanwhile Mississippi receives over $2 for every $1 it pays in taxes. Is this fair to California? Perhaps not, but Mississippi does not have it's own currency to devalue in hopes of better competing with California. And for those states in need, we don't instead enforce harsh austerity measures at the federal level.

Given we are a union, meaning separate states but one country using one currency, how else does this arrangement work without resulting in the current ongoing situation across the Atlantic?

Great (But Not Good) Expectations

With the numerous and deep layoffs of 2008-2010, it's no wonder corporate profits have reached peak levels never seen before in history. And yet with profits at such extreme highs, why no hiring?

Two reasons come to mind, the first being the obvious one: no demand for goods/services. Real wages remain low and continue to trend lower. Unemployment continues to remain high. Government spending at the state and local level has been near nonexistent, with hundreds of thousands of layoffs as a result. The federal stimulus was woefully too small given the severity of the economic decline (worst since the Great Depression). Many continue to be saddled with too much debt. And the ever-expanding gap between rich and poor has never been wider. All of these things have contributed to keeping consumer demand in a perma-low state, with income repressed and future prospects uncertain.

Typically, to fill the void under such circumstances, government is expected to step-in and provide fiscal stimulus to help offset the lack of demand in the private sector -- and in this case, would be a bargain since interest rates are near zero (actually negative in real terms). But we have a Republican Party that chooses to put politics ahead of country in hopes of insuring conditions remain poor so that Obama is a one-termer.

A second reason why companies are not hiring is not often mentioned. It has to do with expectations. With profits soaring, earnings per share also dramatically increase, with most companies successfully surpassing Wall Street analysts expectations. As a result, the stock price more often than not rises.

However, herein lies the circle-jerk dance whereby company management must continue to exceed expectations -- expectations that continue to elevate with each earnings per share beat. When the next fiscal quarter comes around, if management fails at outperforming Wall Street estimates, the stock will get punished, more often than not severely.

With a continued lack of demand in the economy, translating into scarce demand for products/services, management is left with few alternatives to boost earnings. Although unfortunate, in an effort to cut costs the easy choice becomes employee layoffs, with another being accounting finesse or tricks. But with layoffs comes further income repression, meaning further demand repression -- rinse & repeat as the ugly cycle spirals its way lower.

Thus hiring people becomes an out-of-the-question proposition and it will remain so until demand returns -- assuming it ever does. And it's why, to paraphrase a famous quote, we all need to become Keynesians, sooner rather than later!

Reminder: Keynes was not for permanent government spending, not at all. Instead he advocated that government needed to spend during times like now, when the economy was in serious recession or depression, to provide a floor and provide the needed fuel to turn the economy around. In due course, the private sector feeds off this changing of the tide and a full-fledge recovery is in motion. When the economy is back on its feet and by all accounts heading in the right direction, it's at this time that you focus on debt reduction (as did Bill Clinton in the late '90s).

So please do not allow right-wingers to obfuscate matters with misinformed, alarmists cries about Keynesian = endless government spending. It's simply not true. In fact, over the last thirty years, what we've had are two presidents each presiding over enormous government spending during good economic times (Reagan & GW) and one president (as already mentioned, Clinton) who followed Keynes' advice and reduced the deficit when the time was right.

But of course, deficits only matter as a topic of serious concern when a Democrat resides in the White House.

Just The Facts, Please

The far right all too frequently bloviates as if what they're saying is true and based on facts, but all too frequently it's not the case.

Examples: they favor lower tax rates to boost the economy, and yet we have Clinton's eight years versus GW's eight years. Another is they endorse the Austrian school of economics over Keynesian when in a recession or depression, and yet we have the Great Depression versus the New Deal.

They often point to Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged as if it's non-fiction. Folks, it's a novel, and a poorly written one at that. It's not factual or based on real-life events.

Granted, I didn't offer a huge sample size above, but unfortunately when it comes to sheer numbers of events to support a given contention, history does not provide numerous recessions or depressions, for example (thankfully!). However, Clinton's eight years do in many ways effectively counter GW's eight years when it comes to tax rates, economic growth and creating jobs. The New Deal versus the Great Depression does in many ways highlight what works and what doesn't work when it comes to rejuvenating a left-for-dead economy (spending or fiscal stimulus works, austerity does not).

Sure, they try every so often to come up with what they believe to be a gotcha moment, where they think they finally have something that's based on fact. The latest being Reagan's recovery versus Obama, and Latvia as some kind of austerity success story. It didn't take long for both to be exposed as loaded examples at best.

Paul Krugman, Michael Tomasky and conservative David Frum, among others, have been explaining that the Reagan recession and recovery was quite different than Obama's much-worse predicament, and yet you'll hear the far right attempt to make the apples/apples comparison. Krugman's column on the subject is particularly illuminating, and his blog post offers a graphic that all but puts to rest any justification for equating the two periods.



As you can see, during Reagan's recession, total spending occurred at a 14% clip, or more than double that of Obama's relatively anemic 6% rate (yes, The Gipper was a big-time Keynesian!). And yet Obama inherited not a Fed-induced recession as did Reagan, but rather a consumer-driven depression with much worse structural difficulties to overcome -- a more severe level of unemployment being one of them. As these authors point out, Reagan at least had an opposing party willing to help and compromise for the good of the country. In contrast, Obama has had nothing of the sort as Republicans have firmly refused to give in on any meaningful measures to boost the economy. In addition, they've invoked the filibuster more than at any time in history, stone-walling most of what this administration would've liked to accomplish.

I would also add that another big difference of now versus then that is getting no mention is the gap between the rich and poor. In the early 1980s, the inequality gap was nowhere near as large as it is now which made for a much healthier, dynamic and resilient economy, one more readily able to bounce back from a downturn. Thirty years later, this gap has exploded into a massive chasm. As a result, more Americans have less in real dollars and therefore demand has remained stunted. Government spending typically serves as a temporary fix as it fills in for the lack of demand, helping to spur and lift the economy out of its doldrums. But as already mentioned, spending under Obama is less than half that which occurred under Reagan, despite the fact Reagan's recession was far less deep. So today (vs. early 1980s) you have a greater percentage of people with less inflation-adjusted money and you have less governmental economic aid in the form of real per capita spending. I won't even ask why we haven't felt the effects of trickle-down job creation from the super-wealthy, a group that is the richest to ever inhabit the planet.

As for Latvia, again it's already appearing to be a bit dubious as the poster child of what austerity can achieve during tough economic times. I will just say that Latvia is hardly representative of a G20-type economy, meaning one more akin to the U.S. Austerity has been ongoing in Ireland for years and we've yet to see it work its magic there, and mind you Ireland's economy is more of a relevant comparison to the U.S. than that of Latvia.

I actually applaud the right wingers in trying to come up with anything fact-based to support their beliefs. It will be refreshing to (finally) see some actual evidence that plausibly makes one nod and say, "You know what, they might actually have something here...." But I'm not holding my breath.

Romney Is Desperate, and the Electoral Map

We've observed Romney cozy up to the likes of Donald Trump, Ted Nugent and Dick Cheney -- quite the motley crew. While at first it may appear inexplicable as to why Romney would want to associate himself with such fringe characters, to put it politely, I think it simply means Romney continues to run desperate. It infers he is still trying to nail down far-right support in his own party, meaning he's still trying to secure the base! That's quite a bad sign for him if at this point in the campaign season he must still placate and sell what remains of his soul to insure that the 20% who supported Bush/Cheney to the bitter end, i.e. the wingnuts, will vote for him. If he can't lock-up the apoplectic Obama haters, what does it say about his chances to win over the swing voters?

On that note, although many polls have the November election too close to call, just take a look at what counts in this country, the electoral map. Thus far, the race is not nearly as close as such polls make it out to be, with Obama comfortably ahead of Romney when it comes to electoral votes. Obama has approximately 40 more votes than Romney, and Obama already has the amount need to win re-election. Granted, these are projections and anything can still happen between now and November, but the point is the media is, as always, trying to make the race appear very competitive (it's in their interest to do so), more so than is reality.

I would also point out that perhaps the best political handicapper out there, Nate Silver, has Obama's chances of winning at 63%, which stands in stark contrast to the toss-up polls we're used to seeing. And if the election were held today, Nate puts Obama's chances of winning at a whopping 77%, again further bringing into question today's polls.

But I reiterate, for Romney to have to curry favor with such extreme figures in his party to me speaks volumes. Obama has those who will definitely vote for him and those who definitely will not, with the remainder likely making their final decision depending on how the economy fares. It's not as if they feel the need to get to know him better as a person -- he's been president for four years. Either they already like him or not, and the rest comes down to the economy or some other hugely influential event yet to occur.

Yet Romney has a small number of people who really like him, with a greater majority lukewarm or just barely tilting his way, and then of course there are the many who very much dislike him. He may eventually get all of these fence-sitters to come around to his side, but the fact is it remains a question mark. Meanwhile Obama has many fewer wishy-washy folks to win over and many more who are certain to vote his way. Advantage Obama.

Romney, a modern-day Omega Theta Pi frat brother

I think it's pretty clear by now that Mitt Romney would've been a textbook-perfect brother of the Omega Theta Pi fraternity. What fraternity is that, you ask? In the movie Animal House, it's the frat house populated with well-to-do, pompous, vacuous a-holes, represented most famously by Neidermeyer. Recall Douglas Neidermeyer was your stereotypical ROTC/Patton-wannabe, a bit too gung-ho, a bit too straight-laced, a bit too into enforcing what he deemed normal. All in all, your classic jerk and bully.

Compare this profile to what we've come to learn about Romney, in particular the recent revelation about his bullying of a gay classmate. During high school, several friends held down the victim as Romney proceeded to use scissors to cut clumps of hair from the presumed gay boy's head.

Romney's defense? "I participated in a lot of hijinks and pranks during high school," he said while chuckling. The described act of bullying is disturbing enough, but to hear 40+ years later Romney attempt to excuse it away as "hijinks" while laughing no less is even more inexcusable and disgusting. As long as he's not the victim, then it's no big deal. As long as it wasn't one of his sons that were held down and had hair removed with scissors, then it's OK, no big deal. And it's as if for him to show empathy or compassion is to show weakness, and he just can't have that happen. What would the Republican base think?

How this incident, along with the Seamus incident, do not qualify as occurrences that demand at least some serious consideration when it comes to judging Romney as a person and as a candidate is something I don't understand. If you had a long-time friend and learned that he had committed such a heinous act many years ago, are you telling me it wouldn't impact how you looked at him, how you viewed him as a person going forward? I have to think it would. It's just ugly and in my experience this kind of telling behavior does not completely vanish with maturity. Someone capable of doing such a thing then most likely retains some of those unfeeling, hateful qualities today.

Is this a major campaign item? No. But it should be something voters contemplate when deciding what personality traits and characteristics are important in the POTUS.

If Anything, We Should Be Getting Much More In Debt

Felix Salmon writes:

Just look at the amount of money which is flowing straight to corporations’ bottom lines, and not being put to good, productive work. Corporate profits now account for significantly more than 10% of GDP: that’s never happened before.



To spell this out: high corporate profits and low levels of job growth are two sides of the same coin. If things were working properly right now, companies would take their excess revenues and use them to hire more people. Instead, they’re basically just letting those excess revenues sit on their balance sheets as cash because they’re scared to invest in themselves. It’s frankly pathetic.

Felix continues on to mention something I asked a few months ago:

The solution to this problem is nothing complex — the arbitrage is sitting there in the first chart, plain for all to see. The government can borrow at 1.45%: it should do so, in vast quantities, and invest that money back into the economy itself. Take a few hundred billion dollars and use it to fix our broken infrastructure, to re-hire all those laid-off teachers and firefighters, to provide some kind of safety net for the millions of Americans who have been out of work for more than a year. Even if the real long-term return on any stimulus package was zero, the nominal long-term return would be well over 1.45%, making the investment worthwhile.

As I've written here before, we may very well look back upon this period as a time of tremendous lost opportunity. With interest rates at historic low levels, and the economy likewise at historically depressed levels, what the government should be doing (and should have been doing) is borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars at a real interest rate of less than zero to spend on long-delayed infrastructure projects, hiring workers and generally getting the economy back on its feet. Yes, classic Keynesian economics. But the crucial difference in this case is that we have an economy that truly needs such stimulus and we're fortunate to have such incredibly low rates to fund such desperately needed stimulus. It's a complete no-brainer and yet because of continued partisan intransigence, the nation suffers.

Republicans want the economy to remain in the toilet. They've always wanted this. They have nothing else to run on, so they must continue to insure that the economy does not recover. It's their only shot at ousting Obama. "Country First" -- right....

Krugman on Christie

I love this guy, he doesn’t pull punches, he's always fact-based, he won the Nobel prize – and he’s gutsy: here he goes after the NJ governor and Krugman is a professor in NJ (Princeton).

Items

Time's Joe Klein recently wrote:

I've been thinking about this since seeing HBO's excellent rendition of the 2008-campaign book Game Change. Late in that campaign, John McCain began to open up on Obama. "Who is the real Barack Obama?" he asked, pointedly, at rallies, and the audience responses to that question--"a terrorist," "hooligan," "socialist," "Arab"--and the raw fury of the crowds scared the hell out of him. Finally, McCain told an extremist, "[Obama] is a decent person and a person that you do not have to be scared of as President." It was a fine moment, on film as in life.

Classic Joe Klein. He applauds as if special those who are just doing the right thing. Gads. Similar to the person who returns the lost wallet -- yes, a good deed, but one we hope is the norm and not to be treated as atypically good. I think in part it speaks to Klein's many years within "the beltway," to the point where when observing a politician acting in a non-self-serving manner, doing something that should be regarded as everyday sensible and proper, he instead lauds hefty praise upon that figure. Quite telling, and sad.

I know it's many days old, but if you missed it please check out Rachel Maddow's classic "Romney Lies All The Time" video segment. It's Maddow doing what she does best.

It kept reminding me of the scene in the movie Chinatown when Jack Nicholson kept slapping Faye Dunaway in the face, trying to get her to tell the truth. But Dunaway's character was so deeply damaged she couldn't do it, instead muttering one lie after another, incapable of telling the truth mainly because her entire life had been based on lies. It was part of her DNA to deceive and misinform, it was tragically all she knew.

Romney is very similar, lies coming to him like tears to Rep. Boehner. They just flow from his mouth, effortlessly, almost subconsciously. Imagine what that will mean if he lands in the White House. To me it has four years of scandal written all over it, the sheer volume of deceit and corruption likely well surpassing that of Warren Harding. Romney seems to have no convictions and will say to anyone what it is they want to hear. He is willing to lie, incessantly, not caring a wit that his prior conflicting statements have been recorded/documented. In the end, it has to mean one thing: he believes American citizens are utterly and completely stupid. Wonderful quality to have in a president.

Speaking of Romney and the White House, can someone explain to me (apart from rigged elections or SCOTUS making it happen) how this guy can become president if 1) most Americans dislike him, 2) he fares very poorly with the increasingly-important Latino voters, and 3) he's a huge turnoff to those earning less than $100K per year, i.e. most Americans?? Formidable hurdles to overcome, and I could've kept going beyond just three.

I must say that what surprises me is not that the SCOTUS might very well decide against the ACA, but rather that I continue to read of political writers, bloggers, etc. who were shocked, shocked I tell you, to admit that this indeed may happen. Huh? How can anyone be shocked?

Color me overly cynical, but rather I consider myself to not be naive and frankly I'm simply going with past precedent in this regard (something this SCOTUS doesn't do enough). You have Bush vs. Gore and Citizens United, to name two biggie cases. But then there's the Clarence Thomas disclosure form fiasco, the Scalia hunting outings with Cheney, Alito blurting out "not true" -- what more does it take to realize that this Court is less about the actual law and more about ideology? And the ACA was going to be different this time around? Why? Because they're due to be fair and honor prior rulings? We'll see, could still happen, but please, spare us the head-scratching, befuddled reactions.

The Fading Of Keith

I can't say I was shocked to learn that Current sacked Keith Olbermann. Judging from earlier accounts, the relationship has been stormy to say the least, with Keith showing up for work on a non-regular basis, reportedly displeased with his situation at the relatively new gig. At this point, I for one have no idea who's to blame. Is Keith really the difficult prima donna he's being made out to be, or is he just a demanding professional that desires top quality in his work and from everyone involved to that end? Beats me, it may be a combination of both but we're very likely to learn more when the lawsuit unfolds.

It's really a shame. Keith Olbermann continues to fade. I've been watching Keith since his MSNBC stint and while he continued to be his inimitable self on Current, to me his show gradually became non-essential viewing. I would continue to tune in to hear what Keith had to say about the issues of the day, but it did seem as if he was increasingly mailing it in, offering up obligatory outrage when expected, but even that became a rare occasion.

In his defense, the Current show did not have an appealing look. It did appear low-budget and almost grainy to the eye, as if filmed using old cameras and poor lighting. All you had to do was flip over to MSNBC to see the contrast. That said it's very difficult to attract an audience when viewers must strain and wince to literally watch the program. Score one for Keith: Current apparently didn't invest enough in the production values of the show.

However, as I mentioned, Keith himself seemed to exude less energy over the last few months, perhaps realizing the inevitable was near. But I have to assume he had full say over who would be regular contributors on his show and apart from Matt Taibi, most were quite frankly boring and offered very little when it came to eye-opening insights or provocative commentary. Snore.

My favorite Countdown contributor from the MSNBC days was Jonathan Alter as he always provided very honest and rigorous commentary, saying what he thought in a very intelligent manner, not overly worrying about offending someone. That's not to say he was ever offensive, but rather he would not pull punches and justifiably pointed out wrongs and hypocrisy. He was refreshing and always made me tune in to see if he might be on the show.

With Current, the contributors became very young, and with that oddly enough more conventional in their commentary, voicing primarily dignified pap that while liberal was exceedingly sanitized. In that respect, score one for Current as Keith allowed the content of his show to slip, significantly.

Will Keith put a halt to this long, drawn-out fade and show up elsewhere, reinvigorated and better than ever? Who knows. It does seem evident that he is quite the volatile personality who ultimately may only succeed doing things 100% his way, on his own terms. To me that hints at a fee-based podcast of sorts, or something like Glenn Beck TV (oh, the irony).

Or maybe that's it, we never hear from Keith again, except for the occasional op-ed or book release. Lord knows he's made many millions in his career, allowing for early retirement.

But then who foresaw the Current gig post-MSNBC? He can surprise. In the meantime, the right-wing will have a field day with the Al Gore vs. Keith Olbermann pending lawsuit and back/forth war of words. It doesn't take much to get the knuckle-draggers worked up in a frothy lather....

The Romney/Seamus Incident: Just Ordinary?

I wrote last Sunday that the Romney/Seamus incident mattered. Three days later, Kevin Drum wrote on his blog:

Give me a break. I would guess that nearly every family that's ever taken a long road trip has tried to stick to a schedule and keep stops to a minimum. Was Romney a little stricter than average? Maybe. Does this offer a glimpse of Romney's "rigidity"? Please. The Seamus story came from Tagg Romney, and he doesn't suggest that any of the Romney kids felt especially downtrodden during the ride. Romney was just an ordinary guy trying to cram a 12-hour trip into a single day and he didn't want it to turn into a 14-hour trip. Shapiro had it right when he said this story has "no larger presidential significance." He should have stopped right there.

Initially I couldn't tell if Drum was being sarcastic, and frankly I remain befuddled.

Kevin has been my favorite blogger for many years, offering lucid posts with an obvious liberal slant but without going overboard. However, I've always felt that from time to time, he tends to poo-poo topics getting heavy airplay on the left as if to take some higher ground and rise above what he portrays as pointless gnashing-of-teeth chatter. He likes to come off as a "keeping it real" progressive, agreeing with most of the larger and more cerebral lefty positions of the day, but making sure to smack down what in his mind are excessively idealistic dust-ups that any right-minded (or left-minded?) person would do or believe.

In this case, if I'm not mistaken, Kevin's advising we back off the Romney dog incident, that it's been blown way out of proportion. I mean c'mon, any person would've done what Romney did, with a family and all, trying to make good time on a long drive.

Really? Any 38-year old father would've put the beloved family dog in a box, strap it to the car rooftop where it would withstand 60+ mph wind for 12 hours, and when the dog shits and it runs down the car window, said father pulls the car over at a gas station, quickly hoses the dog off, puts dog back in box, and speeds off, hoping to make back those lost precious minutes, pronto.

Oh yeah, that's normal, "ordinary" behavior. Did we ever find out if Romney hosed down his car to rid his window of the dog shit streaks? Or would that have taken too much time, possibly stretching a 12-hour trip into 14??

I standby my blog post that this incident does matter and says at least a few things about Romney (nothing good, obviously). I encourage everyone to Google away, read up about the awful episode, then draw your own conclusions. I know I didn't embellish anything, and Romney himself admits to it all (another political gaffe?).

It's troubling to hear those who implore that what he did with Seamus was no big deal, and that nothing meaningful can be gleaned about our potential next President. (What if it were cats instead of a dog, Kevin? Make a difference?). And mind you, I still come across people who have never heard of this incident and after hearing a quick summary are disturbed by it. It has impact. Also, a disclosure: I'm not a raving, I-wanted-Michael-Vick-executed pet lover.

But then again, as I said I may have completely misread Kevin's post. It happens. He may have laced the entry with wink-wink stuff and I'm too dense to notice. Let's hope anyway.

Catch-up Thoughts

I agree with Kevin Drum about the Greg Smith op-ed. It's hard to believe Goldman Sachs ever had a soul to lose, much less lost it in the last 10 years or so. But then again, Smith is likely a by-product of this gradual descent into cultural depravity. When he started at GS, he was young and quickly adapted over time to what is now the modern-day version of the "Vampire Squid." It went from bad to worse in that time and that's what Smith noticed: relative degradation, not absolute. It's like crying foul that Caligula became more profane in his later years.

Paul Krugman's "What Greece Means" is a lesson for the Tea Party (to the extent it still exists). Austerity doesn't work, better to grow out of the deficit via Keynesian stimulus, esp. with interest rates at record lows. Roads, bridges, infrastructure are in desperate need of repair and it's not something that can continuously be put off into the future. And at some point, people are going to die from this lack of up-keep. I've read that the cost of such projects doubles every five years, so why not invest in making upgrades now, when real interest rates are actually negative! Business schools teach that one should take on debt when the rate of return on the project surpasses the interest on the debt. Here we have real interest rates at below zero and the rate of return to be gained on these projects is absolutely greater than zero -- if not for anything else than for the cost savings alone (as I said, costs double every five years). It's a no-brainer, but unfortunately too many citizens on the right have been brainwashed, and of course Republicans do not want to do anything that is sensible and could actually help this country, believing it simply helps the Kenyan.

Bill Maher had Alexandra Pelosi show both of her brief films, the first showing Mississippi in all it's wonderful glory, and the other film showing what appeared to be welfare abuse occurring in NYC. Pelosi tries to make the point that these two films are opposite sides of a coin, one angering the right, the other pissing off the left.

I don't agree. The film showing welfare recipients abusing the system in NYC is something that is wrong and could be fixed. It's repairable. Also, despite what the right believes, welfare abuse -- like voter fraud -- is nowhere near as big a problem as their propaganda makes it out to be. All too often, they take some isolated examples of fraud and suggest (citing no facts) that this relatively small problem is wrecking the country.

However, the film on Mississippi shows a much larger problem, one that is indeed wrecking this country. It shows citizens who are ignorant, possessing beliefs based on prejudice and hate as opposed to anything rooted in fact or knowledge. It also shows people who are hypocrites. One guy hates big government but is on food stamps, when told of this dichotomy he quickly says he feels he "deserves" the food stamps, i.e. the free hand-out, the welfare. Much of what is shown in the video is seemingly irreparable and is destroying this country. Do these people have any clue that for every $1 in taxes paid, Mississippians receive $2 back from the government? Hedge funds would love that 100% return on investment. They are completely ignorant to their welfare-queen ways and if you watch the video I think you'll agree: there's not much hope in changing these people. They believe what they believe, they is what they is, period.

Randi Rhodes aired another example of why Fox News is clown central. She has footage of Fox defending GW Bush when gasoline prices were rising, with the clamoring talking heads saying back-off, ease up, it's not his fault, the President can't be blamed, he has little control or influence over the price at the pump -- AND what citizens should be doing is conserving energy. It's incredible. Then cut to present day, with gas prices rising and Obama in office. Suddenly Fox personalities believe it's all the President's fault, Obama is to blame. Outrageous, but not shocking. Fox viewers are once again taken for complete fools.

Maybe vanity will finally make global warming deniers believe....

The Seamus Incident Matters

Yes, what Romney did to his dog Seamus is a valid campaign topic. For one, Mitt was 37 years old at the time, hardly a youthful indiscretion. Second, imagine what Republicans would've done during the 2008 race if Obama did the same. But more so, it's says much about Mitt the cyborg person, his lack of empathy, his inability to make a seemingly heartfelt decision as opposed to one that was expedient and coldly fit his needs.

It's exactly this kind of anecdotal evidence that makes one wonder how a person will react or decide in the future. It's quite scary when you really think about it, and frankly I think even GW or dare I say Cheney (!!) would've elected to transport the dog by more humane means.

Not All Billionaires Lack A Conscience

From Jeremy Grantham's 4Q investment letter (as always, insightful and without rationalization, a common means of denial by the very rich):

It gets worse, for what capitalism has always had is money with which to try to buy influence. Today’s version of U.S. capitalism has died and gone to heaven on this issue. A company is now free to spend money to influence political outcomes and need tell no one, least of all its own shareholders, the technical owners. So, rich industries can exert so much political influence that they now have a dangerous degree of influence over Congress. And the issues they most influence are precisely the ones that matter most, the ones that are most important to society’s long-term well-being, indeed its very existence. Thus, taking huge benefits from Nature and damaging it in return is completely free and all attempts at government control are fought with costly lobbying and advertising. And one of the first victims in this campaign has been the truth. If scientific evidence suggests costs and limits be imposed on industry to protect the long-term environment, then science will be opposed by clever disinformation. It’s now getting to be an old and obvious story, but because their propaganda is good and despite the solidness of the data, half of the people believe the problem is a government run wild, mad to control everything. So the “industrial complex” (or parts of it) fights to increase the inherent weaknesses of capitalism. They deliberately make it ever harder to reach the very long-term decisions that will serve us all. The influence of the Tobacco companies in deliberately obscuring the science to protect profits at a huge cost to society in health costs and lives is a perfect analogy to the energy industries that work hard to confuse the public on scientific measures of damage to health and the environment.
<..>
[W]ith natural resources, capitalism wants to eat into these precious, limited resources at an accelerating rate with the subtext that everyone on the planet has the right to live like the wasteful polluting developed countries do today. You don’t have to be a PhD mathematician to work out that if the average Chinese and Indian were to catch up with (the theoretically moving target of) the average American, then our planet’s goose is cooked, along with most other things. Indeed, scientists calculate that if they caught up, we would need at least three planets to be fully sustainable. But few listen to scientists these days. So, do you know how many economic theories treat resources as if they are finite? Well, the researchers at the O.E.C.D say “none” – that no such theory exists. Economic theory either ignores this little problem or assumes you reach out and take the needed resources given the normal workings of supply and demand and you can do it indefinitely. This is a lack of common sense on a par with “rational expectations,” that elegant theory that encouraged the ludicrous faith in deregulation and the wisdom of free markets, which brought us our recent financial fiascos.
<..>
Capitalism, by ignoring the finite nature of resources and by neglecting the long-term well-being of the planet and its potentially crucial biodiversity, threatens our existence. Fifty and one-hundred-year horizons are important despite the “tyranny of the discount rate,” and grandchildren do have value. My conclusion is that capitalism does admittedly do a thousand things better than other systems: it only currently fails in two or three. Unfortunately for us all, even a single one of these failings may bring capitalism down and us with it.